Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SOURCE: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection.
Drudge Report ^ | 8/04/2010 | Drudge

Posted on 08/04/2010 1:45:48 PM PDT by tsmith130

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-364 next last
To: tsmith130
Here's the page; ( they might not allow hotlinking although it works on my computer )

http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_3/episode_312/epi312sounds

Scroll down to “312_GAY.mp3”

61 posted on 08/04/2010 2:19:57 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

My gay friend from high school who calls himself conservative is cheering up and down for this. Gonna shut up this time cause he really is conservative with everything else but the gay issues.


62 posted on 08/04/2010 2:20:28 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Black robed, unelected, activist disenfranchising voters.


63 posted on 08/04/2010 2:20:33 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29


64 posted on 08/04/2010 2:21:10 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

I truly think it would be beneficial for all liberals to take Obama and move to Ca. and they can have their own country to bankrupt.


65 posted on 08/04/2010 2:22:53 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Walker has been reported to be gay, but he has not addressed that issue

66 posted on 08/04/2010 2:22:55 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
So Vermont and Mass. were state matters and couldn't be appealed to SCOTUS. DOMA is being challenged because the federal gov in intruding on the rights of the states to define marriage.

But in California, the state constitution is unconstitutional because it's actually a federal issue.

67 posted on 08/04/2010 2:23:14 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (There is neither honesty, manhood nor good fellowship in thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Under this courts interpretation, polygamy would have to be legal.


68 posted on 08/04/2010 2:23:55 PM PDT by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

First, for a federal district court to rule that any state cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman, is huge.

District courts often look to other District opinions for guidance.

It’s a very dangerous decision and precedent in the broadest sense. I do hope it’s appealed all the way.


69 posted on 08/04/2010 2:25:48 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Just start calling it "Democrat marriage" ~ there's no need or reason to be nice to these pukes. They are busy destroying America so politeness and reason must be abandoned.

The rules of war are simple ~ you win, or you are destroyed. This is war.

70 posted on 08/04/2010 2:27:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy; xzins; blue-duncan
And why I avoid California and have now for 5 years, even though I have a way to get there at will.

The citizens of California passed this law! It was the FEDERAL judiciary which has chosen to overturn it.

Your great state of Washington is in the 9th Circuit so any law in your state preventing homosexual marriage in your state is now void as well.

Are you moving to Nebraska?

71 posted on 08/04/2010 2:28:20 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

Same thing as Iowa.
Judges making law and ignoring a popular vote.


72 posted on 08/04/2010 2:28:51 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (I aspire to a large carbon footprint; just like Al Gore's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rational Thought

Well, not really. Part of this decision hinges on the fact that California had previously granted the right of marriage to homosexuals and then removed that right with Prop 8. This judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to remove a right that has been previously granted.

AFAIK, polygamy hasn’t been granted as a right in California. (I’m just guessing on that one.)


73 posted on 08/04/2010 2:31:24 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
Sales of these will skyrocket


74 posted on 08/04/2010 2:32:16 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Let’s get the party started!


75 posted on 08/04/2010 2:32:24 PM PDT by gatorhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Silver lining - this is as close as you can get to the model test case for the Supreme Court.

5-4 repudiate Vaughn Walker, and he suffers the perpetual shame of having tee'd up the perfect throw to Alito.

76 posted on 08/04/2010 2:32:28 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130
SFGate.com:

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

Press Here

77 posted on 08/04/2010 2:33:00 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

It was a Federal court. Presumably this strike down ALL states Gay Marriage laws.


78 posted on 08/04/2010 2:34:33 PM PDT by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tsmith130

The judge was a Reagan appointee, FWIW.


79 posted on 08/04/2010 2:34:38 PM PDT by St. Louis Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
First, for a federal district court to rule that any state cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman, is huge."

Yes, I'm not implying this isn't an important decision, at all. I'm just saying it's not the end of the world, yet, and there's still a long way to go.

Having said that, plaintiffs could not have two more competent attorneys in Boies and Olson.

80 posted on 08/04/2010 2:34:40 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-364 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson